LogFAQs > #971110727

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, Database 11 ( 12.2022-11.2023 ), DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Has the boomer cultural power lessened, or are they just less vocal now?
adjl 01/26/23 1:24:12 PM #51:	Count_Drachma posted... You can either support the far-left policies that led to the destruction of American labor or you can complain about the far-left policies that led to the destruction of American labor. Remember kids: "You actually have to pay your workers and try not to kill them and also they can't be literal children" are "fer-left policies that led to the destruction of American labour," and absolutely zero blame for that can be placed at the feet of greedy billionaires who decided that they'd rather employ children they were allowed to kill instead of becoming slightly less billionaire. Count_Drachma posted... And for all of your grandstanding, I doubt you'd be willing to take a time machine and live as just an ordinary person 60 years ago. Why do you think this is a zero-sum game? Can you not think of a way that we could have video games and polio vaccines and a sustainable housing market? Do you not realize that "sure, you'll need to make double your regional median income to feel any semblance of housing security, but at least your mom won't serve jelly salads!" isn't actually a particularly insightful remark? BlackScythe0 posted... How is being upset about the politicians that were elected and the policies that were implemented "generalizations"? This is really the thing to focus on. Did every single person born between 1945 and 1965 contribute to modern social problems? No. Obviously not. But the prevailing culture among that generation and the political climate and decisions that generated have very obviously had disastrous effects on wealth inequality, cost of living, and many other everyday problems the current generation has to contend with. That also hasn't stopped. Many from that generation continue to cling to that culture and let it guide their voting decisions (even in the face of abundant reason to change), making everything worse in the process. Does that mean celebrating the death of millions of people is a good thing? Not so much. Does it mean that there's room to recognize that said generation's inevitable demise will change the political landscape in a way that ameliorates some of those issues? Yeah. It's a fine line, one which is prone to being exaggerated for Internet comedy, but I can understand where it's coming from. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:971110727] in Has the bo... [t:80323960]...</cite> <quote>Count_Drachma posted... </cite><quote>You can either support the far-left policies that led to the destruction of American labor or you can complain about the far-left policies that led to the destruction of American labor.</quote>Remember kids: "You actually have to pay your workers and try not to kill them and also they can't be literal children" are "fer-left policies that led to the destruction of American labour," and absolutely zero blame for that can be placed at the feet of greedy billionaires who decided that they'd rather employ children they were allowed to kill instead of becoming slightly less billionaire.Count_Drachma posted... </cite><quote>And for all of your grandstanding, I doubt you'd be willing to take a time machine and live as just an ordinary person 60 years ago.</quote>Why do you think this is a zero-sum game? Can you not think of a way that we could have video games and polio vaccines and a sustainable housing market? Do you not realize that "sure, you'll need to make double your regional median income to feel any semblance of housing security, but at least your mom won't serve jelly salads!" isn't actually a particularly insightful remark?BlackScythe0 posted... </cite><quote>How is being upset about the politicians that were elected and the policies that were implemented "generalizations"?</quote>This is really the thing to focus on. Did every single person born between 1945 and 1965 contribute to modern social problems? No. Obviously not. But the prevailing culture among that generation and the political climate and decisions that generated have very obviously had disastrous effects on wealth inequality, cost of living, and many other everyday problems the current generation has to contend with. That also hasn't stopped. Many from that generation continue to cling to that culture and let it guide their voting decisions (even in the face of abundant reason to change), making everything worse in the process.Does that mean celebrating the death of millions of people is a good thing? Not so much. Does it mean that there's room to recognize that said generation's inevitable demise will change the political landscape in a way that ameliorates some of those issues? Yeah. It's a fine line, one which is prone to being exaggerated for Internet comedy, but I can understand where it's coming from. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1